7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Preliminary phylogeny of Encarsia Förster (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) based on morphology and 28S rDNA.

      Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
      Animals, Cell Nucleus, metabolism, DNA, Ribosomal, genetics, Female, Likelihood Functions, Male, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 28S, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Species Specificity, Wasps, classification, physiology, Wing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Species of Encarsia Förster (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae, Coccophaginae) are economically important for the biological control of whitefly and armored scale pests (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae, Diaspididae). Whereas some regional keys for identification of Encarsia species are now available, few studies have addressed relationships within this diverse and cosmopolitan genus because of unreliable morphological data. Nuclear sequences of the D2 expansion region of 28S rDNA were determined from 67 strains of 24 species representing 10 species groups of Encarsia, 2 strains of Encarsiella noyesi Hayat, and 1 strain of Coccophagoides fuscipennis Girault. Analysis of molecular data alone and combined with morphological data resolves many nodes not resolved by morphology alone and offer insights into which morphological characters are useful for supporting group relationships. All analyses that include molecular data reveal Encarsia to be paraphyletic with respect to Encarsiella. If monophyly of Encarsia is constrained, the relationships are the same but with a different root within Encarsia, and these trees are presented as an alternate hypothesis. The luteola and strenua species groups are shown by both morphological and molecular data to be monophyletic, whereas the inaron group, the E. nigricephala + luteola group, and the E. quericola + strenua group are supported only by molecular data. The aurantii and parvella species groups are not supported in any of the analyses. The utility of morphological characters for defining species group relationships is discussed. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article